Why did they change the Mass?

[Ahlman]

I must be said that the Mass of Paul VI was not the Mass that Vatican II called for. Read Sacrosanctum Concillium and you will see that what I say is true.

However, the Mass was changed in an effort to appeal to Protestants. It was hoped that the new Mass would foster conversions. In reality, we now have fewer conversions than we did when the Tridentine Mass was the only Mass of the Roman rite.

In all honesty, I can’t understand why they changed the Mass. The Tridentine Mass if far superior to the new Mass in my opinion. There will be many theories but we will never know the real reason why. Only Archbishop Bugnini knows the real reasons.

Let me share a quote from John Paul II:s Ecclesia de Eucharistia:

Certainly the *liturgical reform inaugurated by the Council *has greatly contributed to a more conscious, active and fruitful participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar on the part of the faithful.

The reform of the Mass was called for by the council in order “that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved”, and according to John Paul II, 24 years after the new Missal was promulgated, the Mass of Paul VI has been succesful in fulfilling this wish of the council. Why do so many Catholics seek reasons for believing that the reform of the liturgy has been a failure or mistake, when the popes so clearly have said the opposite, that it has been quite succesful?

However, John Paul II continues a few lines later in Ecclesia de Eucharistia:

It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many.

In other words, the problems isn’t the new liturgy per se, but the numerous abuses that unfortunately have come with it.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

Promoters of communion in the hand always make use of the Mystagocical Catecheses of St Cyril of Jerusalem in order to prove that the ancient Church approved this practice.

Here is what St Cyril said:

While this is proof that certain members of the early Church did advocate communion in the hand, it does not mean that this was a universal practice.

**I am not aware of anyone claiming this was a universal practice.

I introduced it because of the claims it originated as a Protestant influence and was used to deny the Real Presence.**

 

[ComradeAndrei]

The way I see it, while it is certainly true that communion in the hand was practiced, at least to some degree, in the earlier Church. However, it has been discontinued for the last millenium (or better). The Protestants did re-introduce “communion” in the hand to take away the awe and respect engendered by Roman communion practices.

How is communion in the hand, yanked out of the 4th Century and given as a “restoration” completely out of the context and practice of the earlier discipline NOT be seen as a ploy to downplay the Catholicism in the Mass and a bold-faced innovation?

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

The way I see it, while it is certainly true that communion in the hand was practiced, at least to some degree, in the earlier Church. However, it has been discontinued for the last millenium (or better). The Protestants did re-introduce “communion” in the hand to take away the awe and respect engendered by Roman communion practices.

How is communion in the hand, yanked out of the 4th Century and given as a “restoration” completely out of the context and practice of the earlier discipline NOT be seen as a ploy to downplay the Catholicism in the Mass and a bold-faced innovation?

IMO calling it a ‘bold faced innovation’ and a ‘ploy to downplay the Catholicism in the Mass’ is a major slap in the face of the early church - and insult to those who came before us in faith and who laid the groundwork for us.

For us - who in the millenium have seen the church set MINIMUMS because misguided zeal to respect the Sacraments began to push laity away from frequent reception of Communion and Reconciliation.

 

[Dempsey1919]

IMO calling it a ‘bold faced innovation’ and a ‘ploy to downplay the Catholicism in the Mass’ is a major slap in the face of the early church - and insult to those who came before us in faith and who laid the groundwork for us.

I disagree with what you have said. We agree that there was a small, non universal practice within the early Church to receive communion in the hand. We also agree that this was discontinued because it caused some to lose faith in the Real Presence. Remember: lex orandi, lex credendi; how we worship is how we believe. However, to disagree with communion in the hand is not disrespectful to the early church. The Roman rite has always received communion on the tongue - as demonstrated by the quotes that I provided.

We Catholics believe in an organic growth of the liturgy. Elements within the Mass naturally change to better suit the times. The Roman rite saw fit to create a universal practice of communion on the tongue because it showed profound respect to the real presence. At the same time, they decided to prohibit communion in the hand because this was used by Protestant reformers to show their disbelief in the Real Presence.

The fact that a small number in the early eastern Church received communion in the hand does not mean that those within the Roman rite should adopt this practice. We have an entirely different liturgical tradition.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

I disagree with what you have said. We agree that there was a small, non universal practice within the early Church to receive communion in the hand. We also agree that this was discontinued because it caused some to lose faith in the Real Presence. Remember: lex orandi, lex credendi; how we worship is how we believe. However, to disagree with communion in the hand is not disrespectful to the early church. The Roman rite has always received communion on the tongue - as demonstrated by the quotes that I provided.

We Catholics believe in an organic growth of the liturgy. Elements within the Mass naturally change to better suit the times. The Roman rite saw fit to create a universal practice of communion on the tongue because it showed profound respect to the real presence. At the same time, they decided to prohibit communion in the hand because this was used by Protestant reformers to show their disbelief in the Real Presence.

The fact that a small number in the early eastern Church received communion in the hand does not mean that those within the Roman rite should adopt this practice. We have an entirely different liturgical tradition.

The insult I refer to is that we - separated by the expanse of time and space - know better than those of the early church regarding how to respect the Sacrament.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I have decided to repost a thread that I started a few weeks back because it is relevant to the discussion:

Sacrosanctum Concilium makes reference of the need to “restore” the Sacred Liturgy. During Vatican II, the Latin Rite celebrated the Tridentine Mass according to the Missal of Bl John XXIII. Therefore, it is obvious that the Council Fathers wanted to restore the Tridentine Mass to something more ancient as a restoration implies a return to something earlier.

Here is a quotation from Sacrosanctum Concilium that shows the call for the “restoration” of the Liturgy:

III. The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy

1. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.

In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.

I am assuming that the Mass of Paul VI is the fruit of this restoration because this is the Mass that came after the Second Vatican Council.

The Apostolic Constitution of Pope St Pius V entitled “Quo Primum,” also makes reference to the need to restore the Sacred Liturgy. The result of this restoration was the Tridentine Mass. Here is a quote from Quo Primum:

We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; **and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers. **When this work has been gone over numerous times and further emended, after serious study and reflection, We commanded that the finished product be printed and published as soon as possible, so that all might enjoy the fruits of this labor; and thus, priests would know which prayers to use and which rites and ceremonies they were required to observe from now on in the celebration of Masses.

Both the Tridentine Mass and the Mass of Paul VI claim to be restorations of the Sacred Liturgy. Pope St Pius V claimed that his Mass was “the original form and rite of the holy Fathers.” However, Sacrosanctum Concilium stated that the Mass needed to be restored to something more ancient. If the Tridentine Mass was the “original form and rite of the holy Fathers” why would it need to be restored? What could it be restored to? The Tridentine Mass itself was a restoration of the Liturgy.

As I have said, I am assuming that the Novus Ordo Missae is the fruit of Vatican II. I am assuming that this Mass was promulgated in order to implement the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy? However, is this what the Council Fathers wanted?

What is the real Mass of Vatican II?

Personally, I don’t believe that it is the Mass of Paul VI. I don’t believe that the Council Fathers had this Mass in mind when they wrote Sacrosanctum Concilium. The reforms of Sacrosanctum Concilium could have been implemented in the Tridentine Mass. Sacrosanctum Concilium’s recommendation for more scripture would have been possible within the Tridentine Mass as would more vernacular where required.

 

[Dempsey1919]

The insult I refer to is that we - separated by the expanse of time and space - know better than those of the early church regarding how to respect the Sacrament.

We also have a better understanding of theology than them. Some of the early Fathers did not believe in the Immaculate Conception but we do. We are not disrespecting them because we have a clearer knowledge of the sacred deposit of faith in the same way that we are not disrespecting them for having a different view on liturgical practice.

Doctrines develop…and liturgical practices grow. That’s what happens in time.

 

[stmaria]

Why did they change the Mass from the Tridentine to the Norvus Ordo? I realize there must be a document explaining their decision, please let me know where I can find it and read it. Thank you very much!

Please read this article. It will answer all of your questions.
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0540.html

 

[Elizabeth2]

I’m in my 60’s and lived through the changes to the Liturgy. I think the Church went through turbulent times in the 60’s and 70’s but I believe that things are settling down now. I like the new Mass better than the old. As a child growing up with the Latin Mass, it was easy to let your mind wander. The mystery may have been there but God seemed Holy and remote. Today’s liturgies speak more to my everyday life, they help me live my life better in God’s service. God seems more Emmanuel, than a remote God living far away. And I think that is how it should be. In today’s world we are under a lot of stress. Never before in History has the ordinary person been made so aware of the problems in our world, because of the media. I think people come to Church to worship the Lord but also they need a Sunday liturgy that comforts and sustains them in their everyday walk with the Lord. Many have personal problems. I find this comfort in today’s liturgies in a way that I did not in the old days. We, the Church, are a people in progress and we should not be hard on one another or fighting one another over liturgical details. As long as something is not forbidden by the Church then we should allow everyone to make their own choices, without being judgemental: Communion in the hand or on the tongue, whichever the individual decided is best for them.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I am in my mid-50s and I too lived through the changes and I was an altar boy the whole time up till 1969. I have waited close to 40 years for this day when we would recover our senses and begin to halt the abuses. For as many of my brothers and sisters of the time who embraced the changes, there were just as many who, perforce, had to keep silence in deference to the Magisterium.

Once the floodgates of change were opened, it was inevitable that anything would go. I was reduced to a second class citizen (of sorts) in that the only Mass that I could stand to attend without “offering it up” was the very first Mass on Sunday which was not sung. I’m sorry, but it seems kind of relatavistic to me that we had one set of standards as late as 1969 and then after that “anything goes”. It took me until 1983 to find a parish that maintained the kind of orthodoxy that was common up till 1969. I’ve not looked back.

I do not, have not, and will not receive in the hand. I would love to see the altar rails restored and the option be available for those of us who want to kneel to be able to kneel. Much emphasis is made about the ability to receive in the hand…who sees to my desires? Much emphasis has been devoted to the relativsim that I’m OK, you’re OK and that anything except solemnity and our Latin heritage is OK. Has any thought been given to this? That we have virtually wholesale rejected our heritage?

I went to my first Protestant service in 1967 - my grandmother’s memorial service. We had to get permission from our parish priest to attend. I was 16. It was a shocking experience. It would not be shocking today.

Elizabeth? Do you notice how easily you use the term “walk with the Lord”? Did you hear this term as a child? Did you notice your emphasis on the individual rather than the Magesterium?

Some things to think about. And here’s the converse. Why did the Holy Father issue the Motu Proprio if I’m OK, you’re OK is OK?

 

[markadm]

Whichever the individual decided is best for them.

This is the symptom of our age.

Personally I am happier with others having made the choice for me. I know that my own nature makes me incapable of many choices. And I thank the Lord every time they are taken away from me.

When will we give up our “crutch” of the personal ‘freedoms’ and ‘independence’ that modern times have foisted on us? Give me a time machine, someone!

 

[AJV]

Personally, I don’t believe that it is the Mass of Paul VI. I don’t believe that the Council Fathers had this Mass in mind when they wrote Sacrosanctum Concilium. The reforms of Sacrosanctum Concilium could have been implemented in the Tridentine Mass. Sacrosanctum Concilium’s recommendation for more scripture would have been possible within the Tridentine Mass as would more vernacular where required.

I’m not fully sure of the argument that the Council Fathers didn’t know, or didn’t realise what exactly they were approving.Not the NO, to be sure, but I don’t think (correction welcome, since I’m still researching this point) that it was only a slightly modified TLM either.

Two months before, in October, they were given a declaratio by the Commission on the liturgy. The declaratio specifically mentioned several changes. Take the Offertory prayers, for instance- a major issue of contention today. It specifically mentions that the “prayers are to be revised so as to correspond with an offering of gifts to be consecrated later”. I cannot see then, how this envisions the retention of the prayers at the offering of the host or the chalice.

I want to post a major part of the declaratio when I’m free-er in about two weeks, but if you would like to look it up before then, it is the book Acta synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II (volume II)

 

[ncjohn]

I must be said that the Mass of Paul VI was not the Mass that Vatican II called for. Read Sacrosanctum Concillium and you will see that what I say is true.

While it is true that the Pauline Mass is not exactly what SC called for, it is also clear that the intent of the Council was to have a starting point and that it was never envisioned that what is noted in SC would be the exact final form. That is why the section is in there about Bishops having authority to adjust it and why the commission was put together to examine what was originally called for and determine a final form.

There was overwhelmiing concensus, after the implementation of the SC form, that the mix of Latin and English was awkward and that people would not respond to it overall. There was also overwhelming concensus that people preferred Mass in the vernacular, just as they did when the Mass was switched to Latin to begin with–the vernacular of its own time.

However, the Mass was changed in an effort to appeal to Protestants.

Source for this please, and not just somebody’s opinion but something from the Council that indicates this to be the case. This is one of those statements people have thrown out for so long without support that it is just ‘assumed’ to be true.

In all honesty, I can’t understand why they changed the Mass. The Tridentine Mass if far superior to the new Mass in my opinion. There will be many theories but we will never know the real reason why. Only Archbishop Bugnini knows the real reasons.

That is totally subjective as many of us find exactly the opposite to be true. And one need not ask Bugnini why it was changed as the quote from SC clearly expresses why it was changed.

I am still waiting for the proper implementation of Sacrosanctum Concillium.

And I would propose that we did get the “proper implementation”. The “proper implementation” is the one that is the result of what the study commission was set up to find and what the Pope who signed off on both SC and the final output of the commission approved. That is NOT to say that abuses to the Mass that have resulted in some cases are correct or acceptable but that the desire of the Council fathers was in fact followed.

While there have been those of the “traditionalist” preference who have expressed their disapproval with the end result, I have not seen a single complaint from one of those who voted to approve SC claiming that they were “duped” and that the Pauline Mass was some horrible distortion of their intent. With over 2000 of the Church’s hierarchy voting for SC there certainly would have been a huge outcry from them had they seen something totally different from what they wanted, as the claim is so often made.

As you said in a later post

When discussing the change in the liturgy, you will read many things that lack evidence; many of the statements are ancedotal and can not be verified by facts.

Having had many years of experience with both forms, I can find the beauty in each without feeling a need to disparage either. Just as there are badly done OF Masses now, many of the pre-Vatican 2 TLM’s I attended were no reverent Godsend by any stretch of the imagination. I have seen true beauty and true abuse of both forms.

In the end the “best” Mass for an individual is the one in which they hear God speaking to them most clearly. As the Pope told us, neither has more inherent dignity thant they other, however much one might prefer one over the other.

The Mass was changed because the Council fathers felt that it had become too privatized and that people were not enjoying the full fruits of participating in the liturgy that is the highlight of our spritual experience. There is no question in my mind from the wording of SC that there was an intent to create a new form, more in touch with scripture and the early Church, as the form of the TLM itself would not allow for the “active participation” at all levels that they sought.

I do not at all begrudge those who do in fact find a way to fully bring themselves into the sacrifice of Calvary through the TLM. I think if there was one mistake made it was in not recognizing that while many–probably most–wanted the change from the “one size fits all” that had been the norm, that many would not be called by a new “one size fits all”. We are each called by God and hear that voice as He made us to hear it. There is more than enough room for both forms, and I find it very sad that either “side” should think that they have a monopoly on the “superior” Mass.

Peace,

 

[brotherhrolf]

Howdy, John! Blessed Christmas to you!

I don’t recall the overwhelming consensus was that the Latin/English hybrid was anything but a stopgap measure to “introduce” the NO. There was no discussion. It was presented to us from the pulpit as a fait accompli usually with two weeks notice over a course of less than two years.

I went to a Catholic boy’s high school and I don’t remember the changes being discussed in any significant way except that it was presented to us from the brothers and from the pulpit that as of the next Friday school Mass we would do x, y, z. I do remember that in the fall of 1967 some of the brothers started wearing black pants, white shirt, and black ties but most others continued to wear their cassocks, crosses, and rosary belts.

By the fall of 1968, the hybrid Mass was gone and it was the NO less a few twitches - mostly in the translations of some prayers (e.g. the Gloria) which were more faithful to the Latin text than what we have today.

We didn’t have a choice in the pews. Some may have fond memories of the transition but others of us have resented it for the last 40 years. I’m not going to run off and advocate a return to the EF but I saw the most awesome OF on EWTN on All Saints Day. The OF can be done correctly without all the abuses. THAT is what I am looking for - a return to our heritage as Catholics.

And, John, if you don’t think we have gotten protestanized since 1967, Elizabeth’s use of the phrase “walk with the Lord” is particularly telling. Would you have heard that term in 1967? I think not.

 

[ncjohn]

I don’t recall the overwhelming consensus was that the Latin/English hybrid was anything but a stopgap measure to “introduce” the NO. There was no discussion. It was presented to us from the pulpit as a fait accompli usually with two weeks notice over a course of less than two years.

I fully agree that “we” didn’t get to be a part of the discussions, but there were most certainly discussions and many “experiments” done by the Bishops and the study commission. The 1965 hybrid was most certainly an attempt to immediately have something in place to see how people received it.

I do agree that a much greater degree of education and transition should have been done rather than just dropping the bomb the way it was done.

I’m not going to run off and advocate a return to the EF but I saw the most awesome OF on EWTN on All Saints Day. The OF can be done correctly without all the abuses. THAT is what I am looking for - a return to our heritage as Catholics.

I agree that the OF can be done very reverently. I have seen it done so from what many would consider the two “extremes”. I have seen it done very well in parishes with a minimal choir and some of the music that many here so despise, and I have seen it done with full Cathedral choirs, 8 altar servers, and multiple concelebrating priests. I’ve only seen the Latin OF done once and I did not personally care for it, though that could well be my personal taste and lack of familiarity with it. If it was all that was available I would likely adapt without major problems.

And, John, if you don’t think we have gotten protestanized since 1967, Elizabeth’s use of the phrase “walk with the Lord” is particularly telling. Would you have heard that term in 1967? I think not.

I don’t disagree that there has been a blurring of those lines, but I would contest it having anything whatsoever to do with whether the Mass is done in the vernacular. It is much more a result of the cultural change that we no longer live in immobile Catholic communities where we work, go to school, and attend Mass together. We live now in a culture where people are constantly moving and no stable community exists for the most part; where the extended family is largely a thing of the past; where the Catholic school system is largely history. As such we are exposed to other faith traditions at a much greater level and some of the ways of expressing our tradiitons has been blurred, with other parts sadly lost for the most part. Expressions like “walking with the Lord” don’t bother me in the least as I know many from protestant traditions with a beautiful spiritual journey who are truly doing exactly that and have a way of expressing that journey that, while perhaps somewhat different than what you and I might have grown up with, has just as much dignity and truth.

That being said, I do regret the loss of so many of our traditions, and even more the change in culture that has taken us away from our need for God, which those traditions expressed. I regret that so many of us don’t even have the option of a Catholic education for our children and grandchildren, however much I might have disagreed with the form it took at times when I was there.

But on the other side of the coin, there are many of those “traditions” I don’t miss at all. I don’t miss the intense clericalism I grew up with, nor the “we’re the only ones going to heaven” triumphalism. I don’t miss being unfamiliar with the Bible. I am glad to see the tremendous rise in lay involvement in social justice ministries rather than thinking that our job was to “pray, pay, and obey” and the the “missionaries” did that stuff.

I personally think that much of what has sprung up from the Vatican II changes has been a tremendous outpouring of the Holy Spirit in our call to actually live the gospel and proclaim that Good News. And I think that the change to Mass in the vernacular was a key part of people having a greater sense of responsibility and involvement in the life of the Church.

Yes, culture changes since the 60’s have made things much more difficult in many ways. Some don’t like the approaches called for by the Council and feel they are not producing fruit, though there is really no way to know what the comparative fruits would be had nothing changed. I have my own opinions about how things would have gone, given the anti-authority mindset that came out of the 60’s but that is of course just opinion too.

I think overall it is still way too early, given the history of previous councils, to determine all benefits, as well as the mistakes, that came in the implementation of the Council. There is always a back and forth though as things get worked out. At least we’re not–at least most of us --having to try to guess at which rival claimant is really the Pope.

Blessings to you Brother and may your heart be at peace in finding that liturgy you desire!

 

[stmaria]

While it is true that the Pauline Mass is not exactly what SC called for, it is also clear that the intent of the Council was to have a starting point and that it was never envisioned that what is noted in SC would be the exact final form. That is why the section is in there about Bishops having authority to adjust it and why the commission was put together to examine what was originally called for and determine a final form.

Where do you get this from? The Mass that was envisioned was exactly the one called for in the Constitution not the New Mass.
The Mass of 1965 was the Mass called for by the Council. The reform was to have stopped in 1965. coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/

There was overwhelmiing concensus, after the implementation of the SC form, that the mix of Latin and English was awkward and that people would not respond to it overall. There was also overwhelming concensus that people preferred Mass in the vernacular, just as they did when the Mass was switched to Latin to begin with–the vernacular of its own time.

 

[AJV]

In the words of Consecration Luther removed the words “Mystery of Faith” as did Father Bugnini, “which is given up for you” was added by Luther and was added by Bugnini, the words “for many” were dropped by Luther and the Commisson allowed the translation of “pro multis” to be mistranslated as “for all” instead of the correct “for many”. It is a fact that “for many” was never promulgated. It is a mistranslation that was allowed to happen to signify "universal salvation

Luther did not exactly remove the words- he merely took his from the Gospel of St. Luke because he liked the phrasing “new Testament in my Blood”. He himself had another service in which “pro multis” was used. Moreover, several (mainly European) Lutheran liturgies do have “for many” and the initial observer Wilhem Kunneth came from LWF in Geneva.

Wouldn’t it have made more sense for them to have removed “pro multis” and changed the construction if they were really aiming to copy Luther?

And in fact, if you do look at people like Fr. Vaggaggini’s words: they never give as justification that they are copying a Lutheran or inspired by it. Instead they mention theories of exclamations by deacons being inserted, or the fact that no other liturgy has it, as justification.

 

[ncjohn]

:yawn:

The reform was to have stopped in 1965.

Baloney. If that was the case then the section on Bishops having abilities to adjust would not have been there nor would the study commission have ever been appointed. The 65 Mass was an implementation of the idea of SC but SC says nowhere that it will be the final form.

There was NOT overwhemling concensus. I was a teenager in 1969. We had no idea what was coming. It was the Commission headed by Father Bugnini that said the hybrid Mass of 1965 was akward.

And again, those appointed to study the form and recommend a final form did in fact have an overwhelming concensus, which the Pope approved. Maybe you wouldn’t have, and maybe I wouldn’t have, but that authority is granted to him and he did. As “traditionalists” are very fond of pointing out, the Church is not a democracy.

The Commission was set up to “implement” the Constitution not to “interpret” the Constitution. Let’s not forget the fact that members of the Commission also WROTE the Constitution.

Your self-contradiction here is amazing. Who better to know what the constitution said and was intended to mean, and thus how to implement it, than those who WROTE it??

Monsignor Gambler was there. He disagrees.
“ One statement we can make with certainty is that the new Ordo of the Mass that has now emerged would not have been endorsed by the majority of the Council Fathers.”-Monsignor Klaus Gambler Reform of the Roman Liturgy

So one person who disagrees gets to speculate and be accepted as “fact”? The “fact” is that over 2000 of the Church’s hierarchy voted for SC. Where is the outcry from them that what finally came out was not what they wanted? If Gambler is correct there would be mountains of complaints from those Council Fathers.

Then you haven’t studied the history of the New Mass.

And as usual, when there are no facts on your side you attack the intelligence of those who disagree. Unless you can show me your degree in omniscience, please desist with telling me what I have and haven’t done.

There was an outcry. Thousands of priests left the Church. Have you read the Short Critical Study of the Mass? Now known as the Ottavaini Intervention. latin-mass-society.org/study.htm

“Traditionalist” priests objecting does not in any way equate with the hierarchy not approving of the Mass. Yes, I’ve read Ottaviani. Like the dissenting views on infallibility at Vatican I it is irrelevant to the outcome and what was approved by the hierarchy of the Church, including the Pope. To try to claim that Ottaviani represented any significant belief of the majority is pure revisionism.

They believed that the 1965 Mass was the end of the reforms. Five years later the New Mass shows up. Out of obedience they accepted the New Mass.

Out of obedience over 2000 members of the hierarchy stood by silently. Uh, ok…

The Council Fathers understanding of “participation” to be that expressed by Pope Pius X and not what we have now.

Do you make this up as you go along? SC is very clear about what they meant by participation.

Show me where in SC that it says there will be a NEW RITE of Mass and the Latin Rite would be put away like an ancient relic.

Again, I don’t know what to make of your self-contradiction. You start out by claiming that the 1965 Mass is what SC intended, with no further reforms, then change here to say that no new rite was intended.

While I truly believe that the intent was to put away the TLM through attrition–that once people got the new Mass they would over time all get on board–I believe that was both a bad miscalculation and an imprudent thing to do as I said previously. Be that as it may, the language of SC is clear that it was not to be a reformed TLM.

Again, I have no problem at all with the TLM and I’m glad it has ultimately been given its place back for those who want it. It does get very old though listening to this revisionist stuff that implies that the Council Fathers were a bunch of dummies who were duped and never would have accepted what the Pope promulgated. If we’re going to accept that opinion of the small minority of “the way it should have been” and just overturn what was nearly unanimously approved, then we’ll have to do the same for infallibility as there was a substantially larger group opposed to that.

The OP asked a question of “why”? I guess you’ve offered your explanation and I’ve offered mine. People can make up their minds from there I guess, at least until the next thread on the subject.

Peace,

 

[brotherhrolf]

I fully agree that “we” didn’t get to be a part of the discussions, but there were most certainly discussions and many “experiments” done by the Bishops and the study commission. The 1965 hybrid was most certainly an attempt to immediately have something in place to see how people received it.

I do agree that a much greater degree of education and transition should have been done rather than just dropping the bomb the way it was done.

I agree that the OF can be done very reverently. I have seen it done so from what many would consider the two “extremes”. I have seen it done very well in parishes with a minimal choir and some of the music that many here so despise, and I have seen it done with full Cathedral choirs, 8 altar servers, and multiple concelebrating priests. I’ve only seen the Latin OF done once and I did not personally care for it, though that could well be my personal taste and lack of familiarity with it. If it was all that was available I would likely adapt without major problems.

I don’t disagree that there has been a blurring of those lines, but I would contest it having anything whatsoever to do with whether the Mass is done in the vernacular. It is much more a result of the cultural change that we no longer live in immobile Catholic communities where we work, go to school, and attend Mass together. We live now in a culture where people are constantly moving and no stable community exists for the most part; where the extended family is largely a thing of the past; where the Catholic school system is largely history. As such we are exposed to other faith traditions at a much greater level and some of the ways of expressing our tradiitons has been blurred, with other parts sadly lost for the most part. Expressions like “walking with the Lord” don’t bother me in the least as I know many from protestant traditions with a beautiful spiritual journey who are truly doing exactly that and have a way of expressing that journey that, while perhaps somewhat different than what you and I might have grown up with, has just as much dignity and truth.

That being said, I do regret the loss of so many of our traditions, and even more the change in culture that has taken us away from our need for God, which those traditions expressed. I regret that so many of us don’t even have the option of a Catholic education for our children and grandchildren, however much I might have disagreed with the form it took at times when I was there.

But on the other side of the coin, there are many of those “traditions” I don’t miss at all. I don’t miss the intense clericalism I grew up with, nor the “we’re the only ones going to heaven” triumphalism. I don’t miss being unfamiliar with the Bible. I am glad to see the tremendous rise in lay involvement in social justice ministries rather than thinking that our job was to “pray, pay, and obey” and the the “missionaries” did that stuff.

I personally think that much of what has sprung up from the Vatican II changes has been a tremendous outpouring of the Holy Spirit in our call to actually live the gospel and proclaim that Good News. And I think that the change to Mass in the vernacular was a key part of people having a greater sense of responsibility and involvement in the life of the Church.

Yes, culture changes since the 60’s have made things much more difficult in many ways. Some don’t like the approaches called for by the Council and feel they are not producing fruit, though there is really no way to know what the comparative fruits would be had nothing changed. I have my own opinions about how things would have gone, given the anti-authority mindset that came out of the 60’s but that is of course just opinion too.

I think overall it is still way too early, given the history of previous councils, to determine all benefits, as well as the mistakes, that came in the implementation of the Council. There is always a back and forth though as things get worked out. At least we’re not–at least most of us --having to try to guess at which rival claimant is really the Pope.

Blessings to you Brother and may your heart be at peace in finding that liturgy you desire!